Sincerity

[The Biblicist]

Are there people really arguing with this?

Calvinist here - and can't argue with this. There's nothing to argue with. Thread ender! :thumbs:

I read through the rest of the pages anyhow. I don't get the argument.

Just go read the above quote again. He simply repeated the words of our Savior. If you have an argument with that, no matter what your doctrinal stance, you're wrong and not just a little wrong, you're really, really, turn around and go the opposite way type wrong. The end.

Hi Gina,

Of course what Jesus said is right! However, the issue is not what Jesus said but what he meant by "believe" in contrast to what some theologions interpet it to mean. For example, those in John 6:64 professed faith and were baptized and yet they never "beleived" in the true Biblical sense of the term and they were never drawn by the Father to come to Christ in faith even though they came by profession (Jn. 6:65). Hence, no one disputes what Christ said but the problem is how it is understood and applied. For example, "easy believism" is an expression to summarize how some understand and define what Jesus said. For example, "dead faith" and "vain faith" are Biblical examples to explain what Jesus did not mean by "believe."

So the issue is not do we believe what Jesus said. The issue is do we all understand what he meant?

 

[The Biblicist]

Ok, so you have a problem with how Webster defines boasting. Fine. Supply a definition that makes what God stated acceptable to you and your view. I'll wait.

Really????? Works is best defined in regard to sinful works. Sin includes motive, thoughts, choices, words and actions that are contrary to God's revealed will - Lk. 15; 1 Cor. 15:31. Hence, works includes your motive, your thoughts, your choices, your words and your actions.

In direct contrast the verse that reads "for it is God that worketh IN YOU both TO WILL and TO DO of God's Good pleasure" defines grace as CAUSATIVE for such choices and actions that please God.

Now, either God gets the CAUSATIVE credit or man does! Arminians deny that God gets the causative credit in regard to WILLING that which pleases God in regard to the gospel because you deny it is God's will that actually obtains that kind of choice. You give the credit to the human will and only credit God in making the choice possible but the human will with full credit for the CAUSE for that choice.

 

[Skandelon]

Really????? Works is best defined in regard to sinful works. Sin includes motive, thoughts, choices, words and actions that are contrary to God's revealed will - Lk. 15; 1 Cor. 15:31. Hence, works includes your motive, your thoughts, your choices, your words and your actions.

In direct contrast the verse that reads "for it is God that worketh IN YOU both TO WILL and TO DO of God's Good pleasure" defines grace as CAUSATIVE for such choices and actions that please God.

Now, either God gets the CAUSATIVE credit or man does! Arminians deny that God gets the causative credit in regard to WILLING that which pleases God in regard to the gospel because you deny it is God's will that actually obtains that kind of choice. You give the credit to the human will and only credit God in making the choice possible but the human will with full credit for the CAUSE for that choice.

You are a 'Johnny came lately' to this part of the conversation. I quoted a direct quote from God and then a direct quote from Websters. I didn't make an argument, I didn't even give my opinion. P4T disagreed with my post but has yet to offer a definition of boasting which would fit his views regarding what God himself said about boasting. I'm waiting on that definition.

 

[Skandelon]

I did several times and I did it in langauge every one understands without attempting to impress anyone. Just go back and read what I said.

No, from what I've read you made a generalized blanket accusation that I was using "debate tactics." You never quoted the actual 'tactic,' named the tactic, or in any way made a case for your unfounded accusations. Make your case. You are welcome to use simple words, but you can't call me deceptive. That is just a "nicer way" of calling me a 'liar' and it isn't necessary. What if I did that to you every time you used a tactic or disagreed with something I said? We would just go in circles calling each other liars. That is the lowest form of debate and I think we can do better.

 

[Protestant]

Apart from Grace the repentant believer still deserve hell, does that help?

You cannot cite one Scripture which verifies your misguided and God-dishonoring statement.

Furthermore, not one board member has come to your defense.

Are you now reflecting the stubborn attitude of another member who denies original sin?: “I don’t care how many Scriptures you cite. I don’t care that no other professing Christian here is in agreement with me. My opinion is the correct one.”

This is what you should have written:

Apart from grace NO MAN CAN OR WILL REPENT UNTO LIFE.

Apart from grace NO MAN CAN OR WILL BELIEVE UNTO LIFE.

“Without me ye can do nothing.”

The repentant believer has been justified.

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Justified believers are no longer accounted guilty rebels deserving of Hell.

Instead, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to their account.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

They have entered into a peaceful reconciliation with God, as their Father…….not their Judge.

Will you now publicly apologize for your unbiblical assertion?

Like the Prodigal Son, a repentant spirit would be welcomed here.

 

[convicted1]

You cannot cite one Scripture which verifies your misguided and God-dishonoring statement.

Furthermore, not one board member has come to your defense.

Are you now reflecting the stubborn attitude of another member who denies original sin?: “I don’t care how many Scriptures you cite. I don’t care that no other professing Christian here is in agreement with me. My opinion is the correct one.”

This is what you should have written:

Apart from grace NO MAN CAN OR WILL REPENT UNTO LIFE.

Apart from grace NO MAN CAN OR WILL BELIEVE UNTO LIFE.

“Without me ye can do nothing.”

The repentant believer has been justified.

“Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

Justified believers are no longer accounted guilty rebels deserving of Hell.

Instead, the righteousness of Christ is imputed to their account.

"For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him."

They have entered into a peaceful reconciliation with God, as their Father…….not their Judge.

Will you now publicly apologize for your unbiblical assertion?

Like the Prodigal Son, a repentant spirit would be welcomed here.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Revmitchell]

ONly cals worry about coming to others defense. Non cals do not see that as necessary. So that argument does not prove right or wrong. Only cals travel in packs.

 

[Protestant]

I never stated otherwise. I don't even deny faith is a gift of God, so why would I attempt to claim Calvin did?

Once again, this reveals you no much less about what we believe than you think you do.

Then what was the purpose of citing Calvin?

Are you denying you found the quote in an anti-cal argument?

Are you now having us believe you are on Calvin's side?

 

[Protestant]

ONly cals worry about coming to others defense. Non cals do not see that as necessary. So that argument does not prove right or wrong. Only cals travel in packs.

"In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established."

Please present your case.

Skandelon is but one witness.

You would make it two.

 

[Gina B]

Hi Gina,

Of course what Jesus said is right! However, the issue is not what Jesus said but what he meant by "believe" in contrast to what some theologions interpet it to mean. For example, those in John 6:64 professed faith and were baptized and yet they never "beleived" in the true Biblical sense of the term and they were never drawn by the Father to come to Christ in faith even though they came by profession (Jn. 6:65). Hence, no one disputes what Christ said but the problem is how it is understood and applied. For example, "easy believism" is an expression to summarize how some understand and define what Jesus said. For example, "dead faith" and "vain faith" are Biblical examples to explain what Jesus did not mean by "believe."

So the issue is not do we believe what Jesus said. The issue is do we all understand what he meant?

True. So true. The question was sincerity though. If one is sincere, that's the only question. They either are, or they are not. There's no great secret to it. That's really all there is to it, like the opening post asked.
There's nothing to add to "sincere belief." That was the question posed, right? He asked if it's really that simple.

Yes. It's that simple.

Any arguments there?

BTW, I totally agree about easy believism. Here are my thoughts on that, read it and please post on the thread. I'm kind of sad that people stopped. It was a good topic. http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2067654&postcount=60

 

[The Biblicist]

Come on! You fully know that does not resolve anything but is pure deceitful on your part. You fully know that our position on repentance and faith is that they are inseparable fruits of regeneration. YOU KNOW THAT, so why play this silly game???? Saying "it is all of grace" solves nothing and YOU KNOW THAT! The Catholic will say the same thing. The SDA will say the same thing.

You know fully well what the issue is concerning repentance and faith and that is if they are inseparable from the new heart (seat of desire) or the products of the old heart which is desperately wicked and at "enmity against God" and LOVES darkness and HATES light and thus will NOT COME to the light because of what that heart IS!

You know fully well, as a professed ex-Calvinist, that when we speak about repentance and faith being by the "grace" of God that we believe these are fruits of regeneration and thus inherent in the new heart being given. Thus for you to claim both sides believe it is "all of grace" is no better than agreeing with Roman Catholics that we both believe we are saved "by the grace" of God as the determinate cause for repentance and faith in your system is not the will of God but the human will. So you could never say "for it is God that worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO of His good pleasure" in regard to repentance and faith. You would never say, that "thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power" in regard to repentance and faith.

Just as my last post demonstrates it is not your position that believing in Christ is to be credited to God's work as the determinate cause but your position is that God merely provides a NEUTRAL condition and thus the determinate cause is Man's work (the human will) and thus the credit ultimately must be attributed to the human will rather than the will of God. Thus your idea of repentance and faith is "of man" not "of God." The only thing you can contribute to God is the ATMOSPHERE or a NEUTRAL state.

To argue that simply "asking for help" cannot be regarded as works is a complete redefintion of repentance and faith. Did you ask God for help to repent and believe? If so, that is acknowledgement that repentance and faith is beyond the ability of men and thus admission of total inability to repent and believe by their own act of will power. BTW where do you find in the gospel one must "ask for help"? Asking for help is one thing asking to be saved is another thing. The former can be enabled as a participant whereas the latter is completely passive and another is the Savior.

 

[preacher4truth]

Hi Gina,

Of course what Jesus said is right! However, the issue is not what Jesus said but what he meant by "believe" in contrast to what some theologions interpet it to mean. For example, those in John 6:64 professed faith and were baptized and yet they never "beleived" in the true Biblical sense of the term and they were never drawn by the Father to come to Christ in faith even though they came by profession (Jn. 6:65). Hence, no one disputes what Christ said but the problem is how it is understood and applied. For example, "easy believism" is an expression to summarize how some understand and define what Jesus said. For example, "dead faith" and "vain faith" are Biblical examples to explain what Jesus did not mean by "believe."

So the issue is not do we believe what Jesus said. The issue is do we all understand what he meant?

Sincere belief can be mere mental assent. It may not include genuine conversion. There are many who sincerely prayed 'the sinners prayer' on many occasions who've come to find out that they were in fact not born again believers, post #2 for example. So no, it does not depend upon a persons sincerity.

In post #3 I clarified this some, here is the quote, and this is the basis of the OP:

I see nothing in Scripture to support the popular idea of being 'sincere' or that if the person was sincere then that's the clincher. I'd rather stick to the book, not fanciful ideologies.

I wouldn't base one thing within me upon my salvation, sincerity, nothing. We have wicked deceitful hearts. We are not called upon to trust in our own anything which includes alleged sincerity. That said many do in fact teach this. I've seen this mentioned on BB a few times in the last week or so. I'm certain those who believe and teach this are sincere. :laugh:

But they're sincerely incorrect.

We are to make our calling and election sure. Both come from God, neither come from within. 2 Peter 1:10.

If you wouldn't mind sharing, what exactly made the difference after all those sincere decisions?

(the last sentence of the quote was directed toward JohnDeereFan's post)

My point is, again to reiterate, that salvation doesn't come to us for anything or reason in us, it is all by God and through God, even our belief, Eph. 1:19. We have nothing to boast (note 1 Cor. 1:28 and 1:31 carefully) of as skandelon argues in post #8 that we do have reason to boast by supplying a definition of boasting in contrast to the Scripture he also provided which speaks of personal achievement.

It is of Gods own will that He saved us, not our own -- James 1:18; John 1:13; Romans 9:16.

Gina, perhaps this will clear things up as to this thread and that it is in fact worthy of our thoughts, and in defense of the faith and true conversion.

 

[Skandelon]

You know fully well, as a professed ex-Calvinist, that when we speak about repentance and faith being by the "grace" of God that we believe these are fruits of regeneration and thus inherent in the new heart being given.

Right, but even fruits that are effectually generated by God can be considered meritorious. I'm not saying that is what you believe, I'm simply saying that some could see it that way. For example, God could make someone repent so that they will be worthy of being forgiven. Or God could make someone repent but still only save them on the merit of Christ's righteousness (grace). See my point?

I brought that up to compare and contrast with OUR view of salvation. As we don't believe men, even if response-able, are saved by the merit of their response.

Put another way...the response of man to the gospel, whether controlled by God or not, doesn't necessarily merit the man's salvation. The example of the Prodigal is the best one I can think of, as the response of the Father to the son's return home is purely gracious, not meritorious. Do you understand? Again, I'm not asking for agreement, but it would be nice to finally get someone to understand and restate something accurately around here.

 

[The Biblicist]

Right, but even fruits that are effectually generated by God can be considered meritorious. I'm not saying that is what you believe, I'm simply saying that some could see it that way. For example, God could make someone repent so that they will be worthy of being forgiven. Or God could make someone repent but still only save them on the merit of Christ's righteousness (grace). See my point?

I understand that Christ's life and death is the SOLE basis of meriting justification before God. The whole argument is about HOW Christ's merits becomes our justification before God. Rome denies we are justified by works as it defines the sacraments as means of grace to convey the merits of Christ to our own persons. The SDA claims that the merits of Christ are imparted to our own Person through the power of the Holy Spirit so that we are personally enabled to keep the Law and be ultimately justified by the Law.

You believe the lost man is enabled by the gospel to merely choose one way or the other while God and Satan are mere cheer leaders hoping thatthey (God, Satan) will be the final object of man's will. Thus ultimately the human will is credited with the determinate cause of salvation as neither God or Satan can take that credit without forfeiting the doctrine of free will.

I believe the merits of Christ are applied by grace exactly as they are provided by grace - without our help = works - so that it is God that worketh in us both TO WILL and TO DO of HIS GOOD PLEASURE.

 

[Skandelon]

I understand that Christ's life and death is the SOLE basis of meriting justification before God.

EXACTLY, and that is true regardless of whether our faith is a free response or a divinely determined one. Do you understand?

Thus ultimately the human will is credited with the determinate cause of salvation

As explained in the other thread, this is a false statement, as even those who believe and repent could justly be condemned for sin. It is only by His Grace that those who choose to believe are actually saved. His gracious choice to save the repentant is the determinative factor. Only if you presume God's choice to save the repentant is a given (or is somehow deserved) is this statement true, and that is not what we believe.

 

[Skandelon]

P4T, I'm still waiting on your definition of boasting that makes God's words acceptable to you and your system....

Waiting...

 

[preacher4truth]

As explained in the other thread, this is a false statement, as even those who believe and repent could justly be condemned for sin.

Your statement is specious and fictitious as God will lose none of whom He has chosen, and once in the fold they are no longer under condemnation, Romans 8:1. You argue against this revelation of God's Word here.

It is only by His Grace that those who choose to believe are actually saved.

God choosing His people unto salvation is not decision based as you make it out to be which is also in denial of revealed truth -- John 1:13; Romans 9:16; James 1:18 &c.

His gracious choice to save the repentant is the determinative factor.

But see? You've denied this in your teaching above. You make statements that sound all good and fair but in your teaching you revert back and deny them.

Only if you presume God's choice to save the repentant is a given (or is somehow deserved) is this statement true, and that is not what we believe.

It is a given in the case of the elect, and that is the parameter of what we are talking -- God's truth, not hypothetical mysticism that you are presenting. Stick to Scriptural revelation instead?

 

[preacher4truth]

P4T, I'm still waiting on your definition of boasting that makes God's words acceptable to you and your system....

Waiting...

OK here it is: There is no boasting.

Here is your supplied definition of boasting expressing your stance:

"Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD."

Boasting - "talk with excessive pride and self-satisfaction about one's achievements, possessions, or abilities."

 

[Skandelon]

P4T,

That post wasn't directed to you, I'm still waiting on your definition of Boasting to replace Websters so as to reconcile your view with God's words....

Waiting....

 

[Skandelon]

OK here it is: There is no boasting.

Here is your supplied definition of boasting expressing your stance:

God said, "Let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the LORD, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight," declares the LORD."

How do you define boasting as it is used by God in this text?